veroq_run_agent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains returns and cost but does not explicitly state read-only nature, idempotency, or potential side effects. The provided return structure (execution steps, status) adds some behavioral context but could be more thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE), making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers when to use, return values, cost, and a concrete example. It sufficiently differentiates from the many sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters ('slug' and 'inputs') have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value with concrete examples of slugs (e.g., 'due-diligence') and inputs (e.g., { ticker: 'AAPL' }), helping the agent understand variability beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'VEROQ AI agent by its slug', and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it handles complex multi-step workflows, unlike the many single-purpose tools in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly recommends this tool for complex multi-step analysis tasks like portfolio reviews, due diligence, or market scans, and implies that individual tool calls are more appropriate for simpler tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.